Is Accupuncture Punctured?

Is Acupuncture less effective if you don't believe?

Acupuncture is a pre-medical scientific treatment which is derived from ancient Chinese medicine. The ‘art’ of acupuncture is the insertion of fine needles into ‘acupuncture’ points on the body for therapeutic uses. The theory (the most credible of many) goes along the lines of using the points to produce endorphins using the underlying nerves in the skin. This is used to treat a myriad of symptoms from back pain to anxiety and asthma to diabetes and cancer.

It is argued that it is suitable for use and does work for treatment in patients, including on the NHS website, which claims its use for back pain is suitable because there is ‘evidence’ as recommended by NICE – which is extremely controversial and highly disputed as many Cochrane reviews find there there is no evidence. The way many of these studies are carried out are a subject of great disparity. Most of the evidence is contradictory saying that the results are no better than placebo or saying that it is better than actual medical interventions. Clinical research uses a null hypothesis, either medical intervention works or it does not work. The trail puts burden on proof on the evidence it finds or does not find. When you read this, bare that in mind. I will talk about studies having positive effects and negative effects. If one study has a positive effect and 9 have negative effects, it doesn’t mean that it there is zero effect. It means that the likelihood is smaller of the thing in question having an overall positive effect.

Simple Studies with Simple Bias

It works because they don’t know how it works. With that track record, how can it be said to not work? How Indeed, well, lets take a look at that thing called ‘evidence’. Last year, there was a study published in Ednocrinology titled: Effects of Acupuncture, RU-486 on the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis in Chronically Stressed Adult Male Rats. I choose this study as it is referred to a lot across the internet and in the media as ‘the golden goose’ as to how acupuncture works, but is it really? You can access the PDF of the entire paper here and read it for yourself.

This occurs all to frequently with the realm of acupuncture, a study looks at something being prodded with a needle and to assess psychological outcomes is sprayed across the internet as proof as to the functionality of how it works. The study itself looks at two experiments involving rats in different groups; testing control, stress, false acupuncture and acupuncture. If you look at the study, one of the major things you will notice is that none of the rats are actually receiving acupuncture. They were receiving a shock through a needle, known as electroacupuncture – which is as ridiculous as it sounds. The authors assert that their data shows that electroacupuncture lessens the effects of stress caused by cortisol influx in the body. There are a total of 42 subjects, 7 in the control and stress sample groups and 14 in the remaining 2 of the 4 groups. This was a completely unblinded study; the researchers knew which rat was receiving which treatment. With note a lot of data points and an unblinded study – does this even show anything at all?

Let’s look at the results themselves; there are minuscule differences between the actual groups. We cannot conclude that there is a difference between false electroacupuncture and actual acupuncture. This is because the researchers mask the results behind statistical trickery. They say that there is a statistically significance between the control and the electroacupuncture and the difference between the control and the false electroacupuncture was not significant. The difference between electroacupuncture and false electroacupuncture isn’t mentioned, an all to common theme you will see. This study offers nothing really to the world of the pseudoscience of acupuncture, the statistics are incorrectly represented, it doesn’t show ‘how acupuncture’ works – it can be argued that because it uses electrical currents, it isn’t even acupuncture. How much belief do you have in the procedures that you have to clutch at non-existent straws to give it credibility?

Reviews

So, that is just one of the studies, if not the most popular one. Which shows nothing, so let’s look at the bigger picture. In April 2011 Edzard Ernst published a mass review entitled: Acupuncture: Does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews. The authors reviewed all systematic reviews published in the prior 10 years, exhausting the list of 57 systematic studies. Cochrane release many reviews on the subject, from specific aliments such as headaches and infertility to more widespread views. It appears very little evidence is brought up.

Meta analyses of positive trials have found small differences between the real and fake acupuncture, as seen with the Effects of Acupuncture, RU-486 on the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis in Chronically Stressed Adult Male Rats study dissected earlier. A review published in Biomedical Journal in 2013 looked at 13 trials which involved a total of 3025 patients. All of the patients were treated with acupuncture to aid a variety of ailments. There were small differences noted between the fake and real acupuncture, but greater differences were noted between the acupuncture and no-acupuncture group. These groups of course were not blinded. This again, can be demonstrated in a study published in Arch Intern Med who looked at 29 trials with a total of 17922 patients. The results showed acupuncture was better than sham acupuncture with very little difference between the two, so much that it lacked any statistical significance.

What’s the harm?

If you are thinking it is its just needles and placebo is a good thing then there is ‘not a problem’ as it can’t cause any harm, keep reading. Because even the slightest bit of pseudoscience can have damaging effect.

Chinese acupuncturists recently released a review of all the adverse events involving acupuncture within Chinese literature. They found a total of 1038 cases, in which 35 people had lost their lives. The adverse effects ranged from haemorrhages to pneumothorax. Let’s recall where acupuncture comes from, China. This is coming from literature that is completely biased, meaning to favour acupuncture. I can only assume that many cases are largely unreported, probably seen as a ‘small side-effect’. In 2013 another review was published on the vascular problems caused by acupuncture. A total of 31 cases were reported with three deaths and reports of thrombosis, aneurysms, compartment syndrome, internal bleeding and ischemia. In April 2011 a review showed that 95 cases were published involving serious medical adverse effects, of which included 5 deaths.

It would be quite biased of me to say that this shouldn’t happen because medical procedures carry no risks. Even the simplest of procedures carry dire risks and these events are seldom. But with medical procedures, we have a valid and backed up statistical program. We have no idea how many people are actually being injured from these procedures, there isn’t exactly a huge follow up to assess the risks and benefits.

Conclusion

Acupuncture pressure points are complete fiction. They have no scientific basis, nothing supports their existence. At all, they are completely made up. As I have moved to a new town I have noticed that there are more and more of these kinds of stores around me, which is very depressing. There are a total of three acupuncture centres, one of which claiming to be a sports therapist the other two acupuncturists. The damage and fatalities caused by acupuncture are admittedly rare, but it is unknown how rare and how many problems have been caused. When I was reviewing the evidence linked to acupuncture I got into a few arguments, the best of which was: “Maybe a little search of Google Scholar is required” which pretty much sums up the world of acupuncture; google the response you want. Publication bias is a massive problem in alternative medicine which can be easily demonstrated with acupuncture. It is exceptional the amount of studies I read where I have googled the author and they just so happen to practice acupuncture themselves. I have no doubt this will not go away and die-off like some other pseudoscience that lose traction. I think this will be around for many many more years to come and continue to produce little to no evidence of it’s clinical significance. To put it in the words of Steven Novella: this will be tolerated as a voluntary self-imposed tax on the gullible, for as long as governing bodies choose to not step in to assess it.

Why Should Psychedelics be Legalised?

Legalising Hallucinogenics to Treat Mental Illness

source

This week I came across a blog post on ‘Vox’ entitled: ‘The most convincing argument for legalizing LSD, Shrooms and other psychedelics’. As drugs are an interest of mine, I tend to follow their news trends quite closely in the UK. Now, don’t mistake that to mean I take drugs: I sincerely do not condone drug use, I merely work with them. In fact, that’s my entire job: to analyse drugs. I see it almost every day, death, violence and destruction from the use of drugs. I don’t mean that to sound overtly poetic, it’s simply the truth. Imagine my surprise to see an article in support for the legalisation of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), Psilocin (magic mushrooms) and Ibogaine - complete with evidence. Let’s look at the article, the papers and the evidence we have to support the use for these substances for treatment purposes.

The Article and the Sources

The article is written by German Lopez. He seems to write a lot on drugs from what I can gather, I don’t know what his stance on the issues, but I can take an educated guess from this article. The article talks more about the enrichment of life through psychedelic drug use as opposed to them being used as a cure for anything. Nevertheless, he does mention the use of drugs for cure of mental illnesses such as anxiety, its hard to see what the focus of the reason for legalisation is, he states this:

‘This is the case for legalizing hallucinogens. Although the drugs have gotten some media attention in recent years for helping cancer patients deal with their fear of death and helping people quit smoking, there's also a similar potential boon for the nonmedical, even recreational psychedelic user. As hallucinogens get a renewed look by researchers, they're finding that the substances may improve almost anyone's mood and quality of life — as long as they're taken in the right setting, typically a controlled environment.’

The words ‘Typically in a controlled environment’ is what is getting me here. How do you control for that? What would be deemed the ‘right’ setting for hallucinogenic drugs? There are arguments for legalising drugs to take down the illegal market, I don't think that's what this post is is aiming at. But here is my take on that segment: Let’s take LSD for example and hypothetically say that these drugs work as cures for mental illnesses. Legalizing something such as LSD doesn’t mean that the illegal market will dissipate, far from it: there will be competition. Especially in America and places where people pay for medical care, the black market will look a whole lot better and ultimately cheaper - does that not make it more dangerous? Anyway, getting back to it. 

Looking at this guys 'backing up' with evidence is a little strange. He states:

“….why preliminary, small studies and research from the 1950s and '60s found hallucinogens can treat — and maybe cure — addiction, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder”

I looked at these studies, well, I say studies. Links to articles that back up the point he is trying to make, which in turn link to the studies. I can find a million and one articles for the use of psychedelics to treat anxiety and I can find the same for against the use. Choosing favour over one is called Confirmation Bias. I am more focused on what the science says, rather than a jaded reporters take on the interpretation of a study.

Pilot study of the 5-HT2AR agonist Psilocybin in the treatment of tobacco addiction is a study published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology and linked in the article, published in 2014 and concluded:

Although the open-label design does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of psilocybin, these findings suggest psilocybin may be a potentially efficacious adjunct to current smoking cessation treatment models

The research doesn’t appear to be have been picked up after that. The study used only 15 subjects dosed with varying levels of psilocybin and looked at the efficacy of the drug to wean smokers off of cigarettes, with a 80% success rate. Those of you that have followed this blog and know me, know that sample size is the crux of any study. I think you know what I am going to say on the ethics, the results and the tediousness in which this applies in the grand scheme of things. I’ll save you from it and allow you to infer it for yourselves - thinking is fun isn't it? I will say this though; I came across a study describing the synergism of tobacco and psilocybin. Tobacco exposure decreases the amount of an enzyme called monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAO) within the body. Psilocybin has been known to have prolonged effects with the presence of MAO after binding to hydroxytriptamine receptors (HT), which in turn, can be effected by MAO. It is little reckless to study this as a therapeutic avenue, considering the active ingredient can potentially synergise, is it not?

The second study linked to is from a research centre called the Heffter Research Institute, but published in JAMA Psychiatry. The institute itself is set up in order to see if psilocybin is effective in treatments. That’s the whole research foundation. As far as I can tell, the research is mostly in therapeutic treatments to ease symptoms in advanced stages of cancer. This is far from the word ‘cure’ which is used twice the in article. The study appears to focus more on the ‘psychospiritual experiences’. It is quite evident that there is a little science in the study, none of which can be measured, with exception of physiological effects (heart rate and blood pressure). The measured effects to make the study 'significant' are the account of people feeling better after taking hallucinogens – which they say correlates with the therapeutic outcome, within the 12 subjects used, within a those, there was a placebo group - the study does not state any numbers for the subjects in each group. The basic consensus is: their mood changed after taking drugs - which is probably good considering they had terminal cancer. 

The third study linked me to a page that was unable to be found. The fourth linked me to an article he wrote previously expanding on the first study published in Journal of Psychopharmacology. I decided not to read that particular article. The rest of the article focuses on studies linked to cancer and easing the patients into a ‘better quality of life’. After all, that is the whole point of the article, to inform you on the ‘cure’ for (the word he uses twice) depression and improve the quality of life. There is a lot to be said on the easing of the pain of terminal cancer patients, but are hallucinogens the answer? The links provided to studies to centre around one place: the Heffter Research Institute. Most of the studies published by them are not empirical and are more anecdotal with very the few patients used in the studies - again, infer from that what you will.

 

Controlling 

After laying out the evidence, he circles back round again to that word: control. How can this be carried out in a controlled setting? He asks. And then he (or he is possibly quoting someone, it is unclear) lays out the plan (N.B. the numbers are added by myself for clarity below):

“Here's how it would work: A psychedelic user would go through some sort of preparation period to make sure she knows what she's getting into [1]. Then she could make an appointment at a place offering these services. She would show up at this appointment, take the drug of her choice (or whatever the facility provides), and wait to allow it to kick in [2]. As the trip occurs, a supervisor would watch over the user — not being too pushy, but making sure he's available to guide her through any rough spots. In some studies, doctors have also prepared certain activities — a soundtrack or food, for example — that may help set the right mood and setting for someone on psychedelics [3]. Different places will likely experiment with different approaches, including how many people can participate at once and how a room should look.[4]”

1)    We call this consent; in a clinical trial a person is wholly informed on the ins and outs of the study. What they are taking, the effects, the upsides, the downsides, what they must do, what they mustn’t do. Everything. This would include any previous medical trials carried out. Including information of efficacy and deaths. The same applies to any drugs you take from a pharmacy, that’s what the pamphlet is that nobody really cares to read. What faced with the consequences in a 'controlled' setting, how likely are you to consume the substance?

2)    Any drug of your choice. This, right now is starting to sound less like a legalization scheme and more like a drug enhancement scheme.Which one of these psychedelics exactly is he saying has the evidence to help? Psilocybin is heavily featured in the article - but i cannot find any actual trials featuring this drug with enough evidence for legalisation. This Review (PDF) pretty much sums up Psilocybin, its effects and evidence for therapeutic use.

3)    Say this was legalised in the U.K – Do we have the funding? No. Doctors and medically trained professionals do not want to spend their days watching someone off their face on drugs, they see that enough. In the U.S.A – how much will this cost? Who is going to be able to afford this?

4)    I hardly think this is the time to start suggesting studies on the efficacy of different rooms, I think we need actual hard evidence with peer reviewed research prior to this. 

My final point on this is a point I made earlier in this post. Drug users would be all over this legalization, but drug dealers will be on it faster – they literally own the market for this (sad, but true). Drug users don’t want controlled environments. LSD and other hallucinogens are essentially partydrugs – you take them at friends houses with friends to have a ‘good time’. Not sat in a room on your own whilst a doctor is staring at you, but each to their own.

Is this worth legalising?

To this guys credit, he clearly lays out the facts on the two big risks of hallucinogens: the fallout and the ‘bad trips’. Drugs have consequences, despite the debate over them, they are on banned lists for a reason. They are dissociative drugs, essentially meaning that they alter perceptions by acting on receptors responding to serotonin. The experiences themselves can vary and are often unpredictable. The long term effects of hallucinogens are very well documented, paranoia, mood swings, confusion, hallucination and constant visual disturbances. Mood swings and paranoia huh? This article is a defiance within itself. It is proactively talking about legalising something that it claims ‘cures’ depression with something that has a very real side effects that cause depression, the very definition of counterproductive. How is a trained professional to deal with a ‘bad trip’? Just because they are in the confinements of a ‘controlled’ environment, doesn’t mean the bad trip will be eased. A bad trip is referred to when the drugs cause anxiety or panic attacks, which again, counterproductive. Lets think about costs: Drug use is said to cost (PDF) a good £15,400,000,000. That is a lot of money on people blindly taking drugs. Lets consider that it is legalised, it could be argued that as it is more controlled, the costs will be less, yes? But will more people not be inclined to take drugs? They are legal after all, and if they are legal, they should be fine to use? More users, more issues, more money, logically speaking.

LSD users develop and high degree of tolerance to the effects of the drugs. This means repeated uses require larger doses to get repeated effects. In turn, frequent uses if legalized will quickly diminish in the benefits that are being propagated. For example, say I am depressed or anxious and I attend one of these ‘controlled’ settings for a hit. I get a dose. I have a trip, I feel better. I attend again a week later. A month later I am chasing a high. I am paying to feel no effects.

Conclusion

The market for psychedelics is renownedly small in the grand scale of drug use, they have arguably less effects on people than narcotics. But should they be legalised? In my opinion, the benefits do not outweigh the harm. Infact, I have researched into this and I am still yet to find any benefits that have been well documented. Seemingly, the author of the post on VOX has information I don't and concludes with saying:

‘But if we know the benefits to public health and well-being are real, it's irresponsible to let the potential go untapped’.

As stated, am really struggling to see what the benefits to hallucinogens like LSD are. In his post there is nothing substantiating the claim. In the literature there are only small scale pilot studies that never get picked back up. There’s a reason; the studies don’t conclude much, don’t have high statistical significance and lack solid foundations for future research. Using hallucinogenic to treat depression and anxiety is highly counterproductive, considering their side effects, including the risk of harm and death. Psychedelics do tend to have a good record of safety in terms of clinical research, I am not questioning that, I am questioning the efficacy of such studies - for now, I am not convinced. For an article entitled: ‘The most convincing argument for legalizing LSD, Shrooms and other psychedelics’ there really isn’t much in the way of convincing.

Note: This is by far not the only post out there, there are many more, with many other suggestions on how to legalise drugs and why (mostly built on a unsubstantiated medical foundation) 

Natural “News” vs. Actual Science

Mike Adams: Quack of All Quackery

 

Recently I was asked if it was true that the mercury in vaccines caused autism. After a 15-minute giggle to myself, I attempted to correct the misinformation that had been provided. The person sent me the image below:

As you can imagine, this is utter pseudoscience. (I will not get into the science of vaccines and the abhorrent ridiculous behaviour and propaganda propagated by anti-vaccinators here, but they are idiotic). The post made me immediately think; Why are people still using Natural News for information? I mean, most of the posts read as actual satire, its hard to distinguish between Natural News and The Onion.

What is Natural News?

Basically, the website is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike Adams. This self titled ‘Health Ranger’ specialises in posts about Anti-Vaccination, Global Warming denialism, Anti-GMO, Big Pharma and Alternative Treatments. Essentially, if there was a summery of the word ‘quack’ as a whole to be one person, Mike Adams is this person. For example, there are actual posts where this is claimed:

"(NaturalNews) The future of weaponry won't necessarily involve higher capacity firearms, more advanced bombs or better fighter jets. It will encompass an entirely new realm of genetically-modified (GM) bioweapons that threaten to destroy the human brain and cause irreversible genetic-level damage to the planet."

He also claims that the pharmaceutical industry is creating HIV Vaccinations to populate the masses with HIV so they can treat it for more money. That alone is surely logic enough for you to question the website and this mans integrity. But I’ll go on. All of the post by Adams and his band of pseudoscientific scaremongers have little to no evidence to back up any of the highly inaccurate claims they appear to have unearthed.

Hell No, GMO 

Not all too unsurprisingly, the anti-GMO activists write a hell of a lot about GMO’s making people ill, much more specifically, propagating the myth they are carcinogenic. Last year I stumbled upon this press release by Mike Adams calling (however indirectly) that journalist, publishes and scientists working on the subject of GMO’s be killed. Yes, killed:

"Just as history needed to record the names and deeds of Nazi war criminals, so too must all those collaborators who are promoting the death and destruction caused by GMOs be named for the historical record. The true extent of their collaboration with an anti-human regime will all become readily apparent once the GMO delusion collapses and mass global starvation becomes an inescapable reality."

Yeah, pretty much despicable in the face of overwhelming evidence (I recently wrote a post on GMO’s and looking at the actual science behind them, if you don’t know much about them read it). From this post, made by Adams, has stemmed a lot of support from Anti-GMO activists. After comparing GMO scientists to Nazis, Adams issued a post saying that It was ‘misprinted’ and ‘taken out of context’. This spewed a website, (weirdly in German) that has a list of all the scientists ‘proven’ to be working on GMO’s – for what reason? Destroy their credibility or injure them? Hopefully neither. But it exists, which is disgusting enough (the section with names on is 'under scientific construction). 

In his post defending the words published he closes with a disclaimer saying that the article isn’t a ‘call for violence, as I holy disvow any such actions, I am a person who demand due process under the law for all those accused of crimes’. Following this, he states:

"But what is the appropriate punishment for the criminal act of unleashing genetic pollution across our planet, contributing to mass crop failures, collapsing indigenous seed diversity, instigating widespread human starvation, suppressing scientific knowledge and dousing the world's farmlands with the toxic chemical glyphosate? How do you even decide on a punishment that can fit the scale and magnitude of such a collection of crimes?"

Yeah, holy disvow indeed. There is no shortage of studies proving that GMOS are perfectly safe. No ill effects have ever been proven from the ingestion of GMO food. Burden of proof is still on you guys; the scientific community is waiting. And whilst we are on the case, what is the price of fear-mongering and spreading pseudoscience? This stuff can (and does) actually harm people. Whereas there is no evidence for GMO and vaccinations harming people.

Astrology

In 2010, Adams wrote a post entitled: ‘Principle ofastrology proven to be scientific: planetary position imprints biological clocks of mammals’. Let that sentence sink in. Breath. Good, yeah? Ready for it. First paragraph of the post:

“(NaturalNews) Mention the word "astrology" and skeptics go into an epileptic fit. The idea that someone's personality could be imprinted at birth according to the position of the sun, moon and planets has long been derided as "quackery" by the so-called "scientific" community which resists any notion based on holistic connections between individuals and the cosmos. According to the conventional view, your genes and your parenting determine your personality, and the position of planet Earth at the time of your birth has nothing to do with it.”

I genuinely think this is the best paragraph I have ever read in my life. You can almost sense the tone that if he was stood in front you he would be smirking as he is trying to balance on his pedestal. The study in question was published in the journal Nature entitled Perinatal Photoperiod Imprints the Circadian Clock. Basically the study is looking at the seasonal light cycles effects on the biological rhythms of mice, showing that the biological rhythms of mice are effected by the varying day/night light (circadian cycle) with varying seasons. Funnily enough, not one planetary position is mentioned in the paper. Conclusion: how the f**k does this prove astrology?!

“To believe in astrology, all that's really required is to grasp the basic concepts of the interrelationships between all living things”

And to let go of the basic concepts of science right? I find it ironic that this man has actually typed the sentence “grasp basic concepts”. As a scientist and skeptic I know the good journals from the bad, as soon as I found out that this paper was published in Nature a high (if not the highest) impact factor journal. That tends to mean that the peer review process is so very rigorous, its probably not even worth trying to publish anything there if you have even the slightest bit of ambiguity in your study (I get that peer review is a bit up in arms at the moment, but Nature is very good for not publishing quackery)

Natural Cures for EVERYTHING

Now my favourite, if not specialism; the cures for everything. Mostly on Natural News you will find various cures for a lot of incurable diseases - the odd curable disease, but the natural remedy is better than the actual clinical trialed drugs. These cures just happenstance to also be sold on their website. My degree is in Analytical Chemistry and Forensics, so finding their ‘forensic food laboratory’ they put on their website about food labels and them ‘uncovering’ the truth from their ‘laboratory’ is actually hilarious. It is just a mass spectrometer – and the state of the lab is more than enough to removed the word ‘forensic’ from there. Forensics means: ‘application of science to the law’ not ‘science to back up pseudoscientific quackery’ (I use the term science very loosely there). 

  The website has plenty of articles on cures, and I mean plenty. I will take the first on I have seen on the ‘top 7 natural cures for cancer revealed’. Standard, we get the junk about cancer being so profitable that big pharma wont release the cure for it. Pharmaceutical companies aren't stupid, and they are quick to jump on the avenues for effective treatment therapies. There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, no matter what they are, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials. To suggest that the cure is being hidden with literally no evidence, is not only ridiculous it’s offensive to the community of dedicated, ridiculously hardworking scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research to cancer patients and their families. Each one of their ‘cures’ has shockingly little evidence and links to actual studies. Let me state this clearly, if a website is releasing multitudes of posts that are highly contradictory and highly fly in the face of scientific consensus. Don’t just read that one post and believe it, look around, it may be true, but there is a high probability that it probably isn’t, just like in he case with the ‘scientific proof’ for astrology above and this ridiculous post on how cannabis cures cancer and the skeptics are completely wrong about it – and this is my account of the actual science behind the myth. And even more; basil to cure cancer? There isn’t even one link in this article. Not even one to a ridiculous study or news article. Someone has sat down and typed this crap out without any evidence. Excellent reinforcement of my point here. There isn’t much left to say. 

Conclusion

Avoid natural news. If there is zero evidence for it, they will write posts about its efficacy. Save yourself some time: don’t bother with it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I cannot imagine how he is getting such a distorted impression of what science and the scientific method really is, but I strongly advise you stay away from anything with the words ‘Mike Adams’ and/or ‘Natural News’ in it. Mike Adams presents himself with all the characteristics of a conspiracy theorist. Big pharma is bad, the food industry is bad, vaccines are bad and all the people in big companies are fueled by a manipulative plot to harm the human population and profit from it. Under the pretence of its name, it is a highly trafficked and frequented website, hopefully from people just looking up pseudoscientific quackery, not the deplorable quality of information.

New Year, New Detox

The Bullshit Detox

So, with the New Year upon us we will be influxed with detox diets and diet plans.  People out there all over are willing to divulge the helpful advice you need in order to ‘detox’ your body of all its deadly toxins. Detoxes are essentially 'eat this for so many days and you will be rid of all toxins'. We have stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow giving essential advice on how to detox and cleanse your body this New Year. These detoxes are based on three premises described and debunked here by Scott Gavura. Essentially these are:

• ‘Toxins’ cause illness
• We are accumulating these ‘toxins’
• Detox diets remove these ‘toxins’

Why do people fall for these detox diets? Well, why do people fall for any pseudoscience? Marketing and media is essentially the answer, companies will do anything to convince you that toxins are in your body and they need to be removed. Celebrity endorsements are a great help as well, as you will see below with Goop (Gwyneth Paltrow). There is absolutely zero scientific evidence in the way of ‘detoxing’ will cleanse your body of ‘toxins’. This is because defining a toxin is an incredulous process, which most of the marketers don't do. The detox is a legitimate medical process, you cannot order a detoxification from a hospital, it is provided in life threatening circumstances, such as drug abstention. We call that rehabilitation.

GOOP

As this is the only one I have read in its entirety this year, this is the one I will focus on. I wrote a piece on Paltrow last year and her absolutely astonishing lack of scientific knowledge. So as you can imagine, she’s jumped entirely on this detox wagon. If you go to the page you will find her very scientific take on what a detox is and her plan of how to carry it out. We come to a section ‘does detoxing really work?’ where she puts:

“Yes. While it’s true that our bodies are great at detoxing on their own, it’s also true that these days, our environment and food system is overloaded with toxic and synthetic chemicals, making it tough for our systems to keep up. Detoxing is a nebulous and overly-marketed concept, though, and there’s a lot of crap out there…as sweat is one of our body’s most effective means for flushing toxins.”

I can’t be the only one seeing the irony in ‘there’s a lot of crap out there’, can I? I mean, this woman recommended ‘vaginal steaming’ for a cleaning purification ritual. Our body is exposed to a great range of chemicals, natural and synthetic. These chemicals being present in the body doesn’t infer, at all, harmful. It is true that our bodies are exceptional at detoxification. That is down to the kidneys, lymphatic system, liver and our very own skin that makes up this detoxification system, which is more than enough. Advocating people take infrared saunas to help them sweat out their ‘toxins’ is ridiculous. 

Goop then recommends that this advice of following the healthy eating plan is followed up by a colonic. ‘Detox’ pushers love a good colon, it’s their mecca of ‘science’. It appears as though this is just their go to organ for cleansing, something called ‘mucoid plaque’ or ‘toxic sludge’ needs to be removed. Shockingly, there is no evidence of this existing. Ever. These next sentences are taken directly from her site with a Q&A on 'does detoxing really work?':

“While doing my sauna experiment I discovered that we actually sweat out toxic plastics!”

“Our systems are not prepared for the onslaught of post-1950 synthetic toxins that we ingest, breathe, and absorb through our skin, on a daily basis.”

“Most of the synthetic chemicals we need to worry about are called lipophilic—that means they are attracted to fat. So if we are eating fatty meats or cheeses, the pesticides and other fat soluble chemicals in our environment will be concentrated in the fat."

I mean, who can argue with that logic? Shockingly, there no links to any of these studies they claim helps detox... Simply, because they do not exist. The site is actually promoting a torrid amount of scientific misinformation. I had to read the last quote about seven times in order to try to understand their thinking process. This piece was written by Bruce Lourie whose degree is in Geology and masters in Environmental Studies. I don’t think I would take any medical advice from someone with that status, but each to their own. Lipophilic does not essentially mean they are ‘attracted to fat’, it means they will dissolve in fats and oils. There is so much scientific misinformation in that sentence that I can’t even cope. 

But The Juice Diet is Good, Right?

No. I had a colleague discuss how a juice diet must be good for you as you are just drinking juice, so it must be healthier. ‘In the same way stabbing into your lung will get more oxygen into your body’ was my response and the sarcasm was lost. The juice diet or ‘juice cleanse’ involves living on organic fruits and vegetables blended into a juice, for a period of time. This includes incorporating ridiculous ingredients such Aloe Vera and Milk Thistle, which have absolutely no scientific evidence for the effects they claim it has on the body. The Nutribullet is a proponent of such work, it even comes with a book on how to help with 'curing cancer'. The basicity of it, is that you absorb more from the vegetables and fruit when it is in a drinkable form, giving you a much earned break from digestion and your body will be flushed of all toxins for a new clean bill of health. Again, these include absurd claims that are not backed up by any science at all. 

My favourite pseudoscience nonsense propagator The Food Babe has a lovely Suja Juice Cleanse (for a good $6.99 per bottle) and recommends you consume 6 per day. That’s a good $41.94 per day, she claims a three day cleanse should suffice so a good $125.82 should sort you out. If I were you, I'd follow this general rule: If it endorsed by Vani Hari, it is bullshit. Over here in the U.K. we have , The Juice Clinic, Boost, Forever Living, Nosh and many, many more all with similar claims and zero evidence.

Conclusion

It is impossible to detox your body through food and juice. These will not flush out imaginary toxins in your body and completely renew you. Companies and people promoting ‘detoxes’ are scammers, they know what they’re saying has no legitimacy or scientific evidence, yet they profit from selling it as so. The toxins they claim to flush out are not defined and they claim that organic will help detoxify you. Meaning that the toxins they are referring to are ‘pesticides’ which they believe are found in non-organic food. The Master Cleanse has a list of side effects, one of which stood out at me was ‘bad breath’, which is a perfect summation of the juice diet itself. This is most likely because of ketosis, not because you are detoxing. When you consume a pitiful amount of calories, which is what the juice diet is entailing, your body undergoes ketosis. There is no published peer reviewed evidence that detoxes do anything than rid you of money, sense and my respect. Your liver and/or kidney does not need a detox cleanse, it has a good regulation of enzymes that take care of that.

 

If you have any genuine medical concerns about 'detoxing' see a doctor for the same information I have provided for you. A dietitian is your best point of call for health/weight loss advice and information. A nutritionist/business person selling you something for £100+ because there is 'evidence it works' (there isn't), isn't looking out for your health, they're looking for your money. If you want to lose weight and eat healthy, cut out fatty foods and got to a gym.